What is Morality?

[SeaCat]

What is Moral to you? What is Immoral? (Heavy question I know, but it's worth thinking about.)

Cat

 

[doormouse]

Mine are simple.

Thou shalt not steal.

And my next husband is getting a chastity belt.

(be warned LDW lol)

 

[cantdog]

I seem to hear a theme, here, mousie darlin.

I like your approach to the thread, so I'll keep my weighty pronouncements off it for once.

I think a moral way of acting is one that promotes love or promotes justice. All you need is love, and all you need is justice. If you see what I mean. Hateful and unjust stuff is immoral.

For example.

I saw a bumper sticker, a peace symbol and the words "Footprint of the American chicken" or something like that.

Immoral, for me. You may support a particular war, on the theory that it is just; or, you might simply not support pacifism-- but that doesn't make peace dumb. Peace is not dumb. It's kinda pleasant. People bleed all over you a lot less, and your house doesn't fly to bits in an explosion. Don't knock it if you haven't tried it, know what I mean?

So the sticker is unjust about people who promote peace, and, since it's just name-calling, it's hateful into the bargain. So I know the guy who loved that sticker is immoral.

 

[Liar]

So the sticker is unjust about people who promote peace, and, since it's just name-calling, it's hateful into the bargain. So I know the guy who loved that sticker is immoral.

Or simply just in the shallow end of the brainpool.

Defining morality is a tricky thing. If you have a set of convictions about what's good and what's bad and act upon them, are you moral?

 

[cantdog]

If you're talking to me, yes-- at the time.

I know for a cold fact that my sets of convictions about the Good and the Bad have changed rather drastically over time, as I matured and discovered new ways of seeing the world.

At the time, though, I was moral by my own lights, even though now I am a little ashamed of my former self.

I can see that defining an enemy and just going in to fuck him up is moral, if you're set up that way, able to pick a group to plump for and a group to hate. I can't do that any more, but I can see that the person who does is being quite moral, to the best of his ability.

I don't feel like I should kill all the nationalist brown-people-haters, just because, by my present lights, I can see that they are actually being immoral. I say that because hate is no basis for any moral action, and Asians are people as much as I am. A nationalist isn't ready for that.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I could give a very broad and accurate philosophical outline of the question (Ethics is one of my primarly fields, along with Logic)... but while I feel it'll formalize and promote thoughtful approaches to the interpretation of people's current beliefs on the matter, I have to admit that I'm not sure it'd be entirely welcome.

That is to say, I know the structure of the question, but I'm not sure anyone wants to know that.

 

[snooper]

What is Morality?
What is Moral to you? What is Immoral? ...

Three questions in the same thread! heavy is not the word for it.

Fortunately the first one is easy. Morality is the code of ethics by which a person, or a group of people, act in a way which is not in their immediate best advantage, usually in the hope of gaining more later.

For example, A man gives money to a beggar, in the hope that his generosity will weigh in his favour when his status in the after-life is being considered.

Another example, A couple bring up children at great expense and effort on their part, in the expectation that the children will look after them when the parents are too old to fend for themselves.

As to the other two questions, well one out of three is at least a start.

 

[fogbank]

Re: Re: What is Morality?

Well, much of the unnecessary conflict in the world depends on solidly defined ideas about morality. It's a dangerous term, and is too often linked to ideology. For me, a key element of determining morality is eliminating the possibility of further reward for such actions. A moral action must be one that you would be inclined to do even if the outcome would not affect you in one way or another, either in this life or in a future life. Which isn't to say that the person who bases their actions on a hope of reward in the afterlife isn't a moral person--they likely still are. But a personal code that defines actions based upon reward is not, in my mind, a moral code.

Hopefully, an ideological code and a moral code are more or less compatible. There's a problem with any religion in which a person says "I am doing this because my faith demands it, but were it not part of my faith, I would clearly feel that this is wrong." That isn't morality. Ideological terrorism comes to mind. Basically, I strongly disagree with egoist notions of morality and ethics.

Personally, I have a dual moral code: a test of both the act and the outcome (as much as it is possible to predict the outcome) must be positive for the act to be moral. This means that there are far more immoral acts in the world than moral, and I often find myself committing acts that are immoral by my own definition.

 

[impressive]

I could give a very broad and accurate philosophical outline of the question (Ethics is one of my primarly fields, along with Logic)...

I don't equate morals with ethics, Joe -- so I'm interested in your definition(s).

To me, morals are a totally arbitrary social construct -- varying greatly from one person to another, one culture to another, one religion to another -- whereas ethics, while also a social construct, have deeper roots in one's core psyche.

I associate morals more with one's chosen religion and ethics more with the real "inner you."

Maybe I'm way off base -- but hey, my mind works that way.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Do unto others as thou wouldst have done unto you.

Seems to work well enough.

---dr.M.

 

[impressive]

Do unto others as thou wouldst have done unto you.

And it's *not* the Christian construct that so many claim. The "Golden Rule" WAAAAAAAAAAAY predates Christianity.

Works for me.

 

[cantdog]

wowie

re: fogbank's post

I guess I miss out on all these conflicts because I reject exterior sources of ethical (or moral) codes. I am glad of them, sometimes. Suppose this fellow, whose post I was reading the other day -- here (actually a cool art site) -- were a Christian, with an exterior, Christian code urging him to the Golden Rule, which we have the word is all the Law and the Prophets. He'd be a little more restrained, perhaps.

Had I been in a position to intercept communications between Mohammad Atta and his cohorts that foretold of his plan to commit mass murder, I would have gladly condoned torture as a valid means of extracting crucial information from him. Can you honestly tell me you would hesitate to use any means at your disposal to prevent mass murder? I don't think I would believe you if you indicated otherwise. Unfortunately, Micah, since men have walked upright there have been those among us who are consumed with self-serving thoughts which make it seem perfectly legitimate--to them--to kill others in order to get what they want. This can be a result of greed, revenge, hatred, religious zealotry, delusional thoughts, a mixture of two or more of these, or some entirely different reason altogether. As long as organized groups of men exist who feel they are justified in killing thousands of innocent people, others will remain entirely justified in using torture in an effort to prevent such events. Such things are sometimes mandatory. However, they are not physically detrimental to humans in such a way as to offend the majority of the population of the western world. Unfortunately, when time is of great import, pain is the most effective tool any interrogator can employ to gain vital information quickly.
April 1, 2004 - Odus

Here's a guy whose morality clearly includes picking an enemy out of the broad world and fucking him up.

To me, his entire stance is immoral. But he's still in the nationalist stage of his spiritual road trip.

He might never move forward from there; many people don't. That's why I appreciate the codes you speak of, already present, given by someone who is indeed spiritually advanced for the guidance of people who need it.

I'm with the Quakers and Socrates, that you do know what is wrong. Socrates called it the voice of the god, and the Quakers consult the conscience on pretty much the same basis. So there I am with my moral compass, picking myself a path which I know is less wrong than the alternatives. No heaven, no hell below us, above us only sky, as the fellow says.

Even Odus, above, knows that torture is wrong. He just overrules his conscience to fuck up the enemy.

 

[fogbank]

Re: wowie

re: fogbank's post

I guess I miss out on all these conflicts because I reject exterior sources of ethical (or moral) codes. I am glad of them, sometimes. Suppose this fellow, whose post I was reading the other day -- here (actually a cool art site) -- were a Christian, with an exterior, Christian code urging him to the Golden Rule, which we have the word is all the Law and the Prophets. He'd be a little more restrained, perhaps.

I'd agree completely with what you say there. I don't mean to knock Christian codes as a way of decision making--it's perfectly legimate; however, within the Christian codes of morality, there are a great range of constructs:

The golden rule is a great model in most instances. Very simple and basic. There are cases where it doesn't quite work, but for the most part, decent logic.

Then there's the "What Would Jesus Do?" perspective, which, again, is a moral code, but extremely subjective--it usually ends up being "What would I like to think Jesus would have done, had he been in my situation?"
Which can be further condensed to "What do I feel is right?" Basically comes down to conscience, which I don't think there's anything wrong with.

But then there's the perspective I was addressing in my post: the "What would get me into the cushiest possible spot in heaven?" Now, using this line of reasoning will usually get you to the same conclusion as the first two lines of reasoning. But a person who does so is taking the question out of the moral process.

Your Odus chap uses a utilitarian perspective, I think: the right action is that which gives the greatest good to the greatest number of people. And it's a popular mindset, and a well defined moral code.

My best attempt to work through this would say that his endorsement of torture is immoral, but the opposite--to stand by and let terrorists have their way and kill thousands--is also immoral. Which is the greater immorality? Damned if I know. Personally, I would never be able to torture anyone, no matter what.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Morality is maleable. It comes down to the set of precepts you subscribe to in governing your own actions and this becomes your measuring stick for other's actions.

Morality changes, with time, with experience, with circumstance. The best anyone can hope to do, is find a code that works for them.

My morality fits my experience & situation. To some it's terribly amoral, to others, too rigid. It works for me and that's the only real measuring stick you have for your morality. Comparing it to someone else's is a frustrating dead end usually.

-Colly

 

[cantdog]

I feel free to criticize Odus because I empathize with him. I was odus in some ways, years ago, and he is genuinely trying his best, I believe, in a moral cleft stick.

But the cleft stick is not really there, as a little perspective shows. If I thought Odus were actually a vicious little man looking for an excuse to hurt brown people with moral impunity, then I would give up on him. But since I see him struggling to find the just path, I want to throw him a line.

I know it's not really contrary to what you said, Colly. You had the comparison of our moral codes in another context. For me, you have it right, as you so often do. Fruitless to compare for instructional purposes. Leads mostly to self-righteousness, or confusion, or to doubt, if you're lucky.

Doubt at least is useful.

 

[neonlyte]

There are three beggars in our city. (amongst many). They will serve to compound the question.

The first is blind. He plays a musical instrument. He only knows a dozen or so bars and repeats the same snatch of a tune all day. I've heard his music for twenty or more years, it welcomes me when I go to the city like an old friend. No matter where I'm bound I walk to where he sits and drop some loose change in his box.

A second beggar waits for me outside a popular book shop. He is grotesque, I admit the sight of him repulses me with the fascination that makes you look. He has an 'elephantine face' a huge purple red sack that masks almost his entire face. I've never given him money.

A third beggar sits / stands in the access tunnel to the Metro. He has no legs, amputaed at the hip, he sits / stands on a brown hip fitted leather shelf on a small wheeled trolley. He is always impecably smart, clean shaven, shirt, tie and sit / stands reading his newspaper, occassionally talking about the football with friends. I gave him money once, he never troubled to acknowledge me, or anyone else that places money in his box - not that one is looking for thanks.

The one I feel 'morally responsible' for is the second beggar. I think it is because I am part of a society that can allow a person with that degree of disfigurement to need to resort to begging. On the other hand, he may make a good living out of it.

 

[rgraham666]

My morality is based on the same thing it has been for years: There's enough pain in the world without me adding to the sum total of it.

 

[cantdog]

"First, do no harm..."

A good caveat, rg. I doubt many of us live a long life without violating it. The world is complex and we are limited.

 

[fifty5]

What is Moral to you? What is Immoral? (Heavy question I know, but it's worth thinking about.)

Cat

My dictionary (Concise Oxford) gives 2 prime meanings to "moral": a) concerned with goodness or badness of human character or behaviour; b) concerned with accepted rules and standards of human behaviour.

The difference makes me think!

Eff

 

[Guest]

I just bought a book for my 13 year old niece. It's called What Would Buffy Do?.

I'll get back to you. Perdita

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by impressive
I don't equate morals with ethics, Joe -- so I'm interested in your definition(s).

To me, morals are a totally arbitrary social construct -- varying greatly from one person to another, one culture to another, one religion to another -- whereas ethics, while also a social construct, have deeper roots in one's core psyche.

I associate morals more with one's chosen religion and ethics more with the real "inner you."

Maybe I'm way off base -- but hey, my mind works that way.

You're not entirely offbase--my position is less an argument and more of a "This is how, in Ethics, we structure the problem so it can be intelligently discussed and advanced upon".

First, there is the concept of the Ethic. An Ethic will be a rule; Ethics will be a set of them; to be Ethical is to participate in the bounds of those rules; etc. Questions that determine the course of ethical conversations are:

1) Are Ethics entirely subjective, and meaningless? This is to say that the rules one lives by as "ought"s and "ought not"s are derived only by personal convention AND as such, they are not an appeal to anything more important than personal preference (lacking "meaning" because to say that there are rules that aren't actually rules is to not really be saying anything).

2) Are Ethics entirely subjective, but meaningful? This is to say that the rules one lives by are derived by something stronger, but still personally convenient. Social contracts fit this perfectly. They are subjective, in that they relate only to the subject (society), but still have meaning because an individual moral agent is still bound by them independant of their preference at the time.

3) Are Ethics objective, and meaningless? This says that there are universal and objective rules for invidual moral agents, but perhaps they are unknowable or unrelatable (if we can't know that murder is wrong, we can't appeal to the wrongness of murder... even if its objectively true).

4) Are Ethics objective, and meaningful? This says that there are objective rules for moral agents and those rules have meaning in their justification and application.

THEN... we have a whole different subject: Morals.

Morals aren't rules. Morals are actions (that's putting it really simply, becuase morals can be thoughts and intentions and actions and inactions and a load of other effective things, for now its easier to talk about the moral actions). Morality and immorality are defined by their working with regards to an ethic.

The seperation might seem arbitrary, but I assure you its not. There are all sorts of complications that can happen (logistically, linguistically, etc.) by lumping them all together (the rules and the actions). Seperating the agent from the action causes all sorts of wonky problems. You end up with a sort of matrix of moral agents:

a) Ethical and Moral - an agent has a set of Ethics (rules, guidelines) and acts morally (within those guidelines). This is a pristine person, an easy conceptual entity and circumstance
b) Ethical and Immoral - an agent has a set of Ethics and acts immorally (flouting or outside of the guidelines). This is a little more complicated. It would be someone that believes in "right and wrong" and simply does the wrong thing.
c) Unethical and moral - This only becomes possible with the onset of subjective ethics (even if there are objective ones). It would be a denial of rules, but actions participating in some anyway.
d) Unethical and immoral - No rules, lots of badness (again, only really possible with subjective ethics overlapping the objective ones for the appeal to morality).

This is all just the tip of the iceberg. These are some of the terms we play with in Ethics to identify and expand to theories. Most all Ethics philosophers build gaps or bridges to certain concepts here and there to form a map of the Ethical frontier.

So, to answer the question: Does morality exist? Most assuredly. Actions with regard to rules definitely exist--I'd go so far to say that actions abiding by the rules exist. Do Ethics exist (or exist meaningfully)? That's much harder.

 

[impressive]

So, to answer the question: Does morality exist? Most assuredly. Actions with regard to rules definitely exist--I'd go so far to say that actions abiding by the rules exist. Do Ethics exist (or exist meaningfully)? That's much harder.

Thanks, Joe!

 

[snooper]

Do unto others as thou wouldst have done unto you. ...

In the Western world this seems to have been modernised into:

Do unto others before they do unto you.

 

[minsue]

"First, do no harm..."

A good caveat, rg. I doubt many of us live a long life without violating it. The world is complex and we are limited.

Yup. That'd be my vote, too, Cant.

 

[shereads]

What is Moral to you? What is Immoral? (Heavy question I know, but it's worth thinking about.)

Cat

Setting aside the codes of behavior that I try to observe just to stay out of trouble, my idea of morality has become pretty basic:

Morality means making choices that won't make the world any worse than it is.

To leave the world better for my having been here would be beyond moral; it would be heroic. Morality is hard enough.

Mine is a simple definition of morality, but try living up to it. I haven't had much success. I can't say I've tried all that hard, either.

Every time I eat meat or use a sable-hair brush, I'm assuring that some creature will suffer to provide more. I waste resources. I deplete the ozone because I don't like non-aerosol hairspray.



Like every kid who grew up loving animals and loathing violence, but never become a vegetarian, I allow myself to commit careless acts a dozen times a day, for which I don't have to see the consequences. The best people I know do the same.

As for the larger issues, I grew up knowing I'd be a moral person. There were lines I was absolutely certain I would never cross.

Until...

Suffice it to say, I've violated my ironclad personal moral code in some significant ways.

Haven't murdered anybody. Haven't robbed a bank. Haven't eaten fois gras or milk-fed white veal since I found out how they're made. Haven't even cheated on my income taxes to the extent that my accountant says everybody does. But I've learned enough about myself that I never say never.

I haven't deliberately set out to hurt anyone. But when tempted by something I really wanted, I've chosen to take the risk that others would be deeply hurt. Denial is an addictive drug. I can feel like a moral person, when I know I'm not.

No one here would be shocked by anything I've done. (This isn't the Landover Baptist Church website, is it? Thank God. For a second there, I was nervous.)
By the unofficial code that most of us live by, I'm a moral person. By the code I was raised with, I'm a hellbound trollop. By the moral code that matters to me - my belief that I should simply try to do no harm - I should be ashamed of myself.

I am, sometimes. When I can't sleep and it's 3 a.m. and the house is silent and I'm alone with my thoughts, I'm sometimes shamed to tears. Not enough to repent, though. Sin is so much more fun than the alternative.